The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-04-08
AN OPIUM CASE.
An Attorney IN an Unpleasant Posi-
ton.

opium. the appellant was nned I,OOO
and costs and sentenced to two years i'm
prisonment under the opium law of 1886.
Messrs John T. Dare and ]. A. MagoOn
appeared for the defendant in the Court
below A conflict of opinion appears to
have arisen between them as to the course
the appeal should take, as set forth in the
affdavits following, filed in Court; and
Mr. Dare received a letter signed by his
client, but apparently written by Mr..
MdgoOn, requesting him to have the APP
peal tried before jury and not before the
the Supreme Court in banco, at the same
time intimating that if he did not do SO his
| services in the case would be dispensed
with AS Mr.. Dare had perfected the APP
peal to the Court in banco and did not APP
prove of jury trial, he thereupon with
! drew from the case. Subsequently, Mr..
Dare states, Young Tang, the appellant,
| came to him and said he had not author
! lied Mr.. MagOon to write letter dismiss
| ing him (Dare) from the case; that he de-
sired him to continue in it and conduct it
! in Court. Upon this statement MIR. Dare
drafted an affidavit setting it substantially
| forth. The appellant took it away I'm
! signed with his interpreter, and the next
| he saw of it was as a record in the Court.
| The question arose under this statement
of fact, whether Mr.. Dare was entitled to
| appear as attorney in the case. To settle
| this point the Court ordered Young Tang
| to be called and examined on oath. The
| examination was conducted by the Bench.
Young Tang, questioned through an in
! terpreter, deposed that he had at first en-
| ployed Mr.. Dare to act as his attorney in
this case. He had been told that it was
best to have his appeal tried before jury,
| but Mr.. Dare said it was best to have it
| tried before the Court in banco. Witness
| then went to Mr.. Magoon's office to inquire
about it. Witness asked if he (MagoOn)
had advised to bring the case before jury
or not, and he said that he had, and that
| it was decided to have the case tried before
jury. Told him to prepare a paper to
give to Mr.. Dare to have his case taken be-
! fore jury. Afterwards Mr.. Dare came to
know it and asked witness how he came to
have his case tried before a jury? Told
him that he had taken his case before a
jury.
The Court: Did you ever sign paper
Diminishing Mr.. Dare as attorney in your
case?
Witness: l signed a paper, but [ do not
know the contents of it. l was simply told
that my case is to be tried before jury;
that is all 1 heard l signed piece of
paper and I understood that it meant that
the case would come before a jury. 1
would prefer that the case be tried before
the Court in banco. Affidavit March 4,
1887, notifying the Clerk of the Supreme
Court of the dismissal of Mr.. Dare handed
witness.l That is my signature. L did not
know the contents of that letter.
Were you informed of the contents of it ?
Did you know that this is addressed to the
Court, and that it says that Mr.. Dare is
discharged from the case?
Witness: That 1 do not know your
Honor. 1 signed it in the presence of Mr..
MagOon.
Cross-examined by Mr., Magoon: Chun
Wong told me that 1 would have my case
transferred to be tried before jury after
signed my name. l did not tell you MA
goon) some time before this that Dare had
said 1 must pay him $500 if the case was
not tried in banco. Did not say further
that Dare had said if could not pay it my
sureties would have to do so if the case did |
not go into banco.
The Chief Justice; What is the object of
your questions?
Mr.. Magoon: To justify myself
The Chief Justice: We reinstate Mr..
Dare fully in this case.
Mr.. Dare remarked that he had not
spoken about fee until after his dismissal,
as he supposed, by his client.
The Chief Justice: Mr.. Magoon, we are
not perfectly satisfied with your conduct
in this case. We will afford you an oppor-
tunity to clear up the matter satisfactorily
in your own way by affidavits, as to your
action in procuring the dismissal of a
brother attorney from a case in which YOU
were both engaged.
Mr. MagoOn latter consultation with Mr..
Kinney; would like to have specific
charges against me.
The Chief Justice: You are charged with
procuring the dismissal of a brother attor-
ney from a case without communicating
with him, and apparently without the APP
prevail or knowledge of your client. 1t
should left entirely with client to say
what he would have done with it.
The appellant was then remanded till
when his case will come on for
hearing.
Mr.. Justice McCully: have to say to
Mr.. Dare and Mr.. Magoon that 1 will, in
he first five minutes after the sitting of the
COURT, hear argument for the transfer of
he case to jury. {
Mr.. Magoon: l withdraw from the q
ase. After what has happened 1 do not Z
want to try it. +
Following are the afidavits referred to T
n the preceding report:
n the Supreme Court of the Hawaiian =
Islands, April Term, 1887.
Kex VS.. Young Tang, unlawful possess q
ion of opium. u
Dismissal of ] T. Dare, ESQ. Il
Please take notice that ]. T. Dare. ESQ a
10 longer appears for me in the above ii
Untitled cause, and until further notice ! Il
L. Magoon, ESQ.,, will be sole counsel in O
be case. n
To William Foster, Esq, Clerk Supreme =,
ourt. -
u